Excluding the intragovernment accounts (a significant part of the tax rise was the FICA rate being raised to 11%), the debt held by the public rose from $790B in 1981 to $2.2B in 1989 — +180%, nearly tripling the national debt.

$790B in 1981 to $2.2B in 1989

A difference of about 1.4B. Obama and the D’s add as much in one year (for 3 years running).

It has been noted that the Dems funded the government on continuing resolutions, rather than pass a single budget for the length of Reagan’s presidency.

Maybe he ought to have refused to approve a CR and chose to let the government shut down? The incentive to do so was less then since the scale of the debt problem is so much smaller, but in hindsight, it might have prevented the unending rise in debt since.

Reagan’s big downfall was trusting the Dem’s to keep their word.

A difference of about 1.4B. Obama and the D’s add as much in one year (for 3 years running).

If you had an IQ over 80 you’d know to adjust that for GDP, which was ~$3T in 1981 vs. $15T today.

Like I said, Reagan and the Democratic Congresses nearly tripled the national debt in the 1980s, and that’s largely why “Reagonomics” worked.

This is just basic facts, and brining Obama into it is just trying to divert the discussion away from unpleasant truths.

Debt to GDP rose from 25% to 50% under Reagan-Bush (and Tip O’Neil too):

http://img.skitch.com/20090611-jyx3pkkrm1mhd3g9du5kysidk1.png

Now, back to Obama . . .

I don’t want to minimize the situation now — this graph is truly horrendous:

Government borrowing

but the basic economic problem we’re facing now is we’ve simply borrowed too much money:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CMDEBT

(that’s household debt but corporate debt isn’t much better)

So what the government has been trying to do SINCE MID-2008 is simply deficit spend and print money like crazy to prevent a massive collapse that takes out everyone.

They figure Japan 1990-now is better than US 1929-1939.

Reasonable opinions can differ on whether we should just “take the medicine” (of a $10T cross-default event), or let it play out via a hopefully 70s style inflation.

If you’ve got a lot of cash, you’re rooting for massive collapse. If you owe a lot of money — or owed a lot of money — you want continued aggressive monetary intervention.

Reagan’s big downfall was trusting the Dem’s to keep their word.

The Dems kept their word in 1991 and 1993, when they raised taxes sufficiently to adequately fund government for the rest of the 90s, bringing the national debt back from 50% of GDP closer to 25% per the chart above.

It has been noted

by whom? When? Where? How? Why? Nice use of the passive to obfuscate your usual vague and worthless arguments.

Maybe he ought to have refused to approve a CR and chose to let the government shut down?

The Reagan hagiographers always skip over the fact that Congressional spending was not far off from his annual budget requests. Reagan wanted a big government and Congress was more than happy to oblige.

The Dems kept their word in 1991 and 1993, when they raised taxes sufficiently to adequately fund government for the rest of the 90s, bringing the national debt back from 50% of GDP closer to 25% per the chart above.